CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

[Centurions]

I doubt he messed with the emails. I’ve already asked Christoph on twitter how that night of happened

Christoph doesn't appear to be answering Twitter questions, perhaps he's speaking to his colleagues and bosses trying to explain why they falsified a story (again).

 

[Delboy352]

Daily fail changed their headline

They may have changed their headline, but the online version is conflicted!!

 

[remember arthur mann]

Conn's piece is disgusting and he's burned any bridges he may have had, both with City and with me. I'm going to go to town on him as well tomorrow. He's clearly being told what to write, whereas I always thought he had integrity, even if I didn't agree with him.

Go for it PB, live up to your name !

 

[Blueprint Blue]

So we didn't get banned.
We didn't kill anyone.
We got justice.innocent till proven guilty
Are you reading this you scouse vermin..

I suggest you go to the 'man city' thread on Rawk to see how they feel. You won't be surprised.

 

[jaiguruKun]

Submitted my BBC complaint (first time)

I’ve had enough to be honest. I’ve never complained to any online platform before but the reputation of my club has been through the mud for months and now it has been given the legal vindication that it has been stating since the start. Only you wouldn’t know that was the story from your article.

MCFC has stated throughout, that it did not break any financial rules and that all emails being reported and discussed were hacked and being taken out of context.

Of course MCFC were right on all 3 cases. Cas has found there to be no evidence of any wrongdoing; the emails were hacked and they were being taken out of context (a number of them had elements deleted before publishing and one was the amalgamation of 2 different emails).

Call it what you like but essentially the world has assumed guilt on the part of MCFC based on completely false and fake information.

Only this isn’t the angle your article decided to run with. Despite the unbiased requirement of the BBC, it appears you remain undetatched from the partisan nature of football (no doubt a large number of your football writers are football fans, do they declare their team as part of their job? Who is the journalist that wrote this piece a fan of out of interest...) and the necessity to pander to the key fan bases of Liverpool and Manchester United (amongst others) who did not wish MCFC to be found not guilty.

So instead of showing MCFC to be cleared of all financial violations of FFP (i.e. the whole basis of the story), your article focussed on the smaller bit that was proved (i.e. that MCFC did not cooperate with UEFAs investigation).

When the original punishment was brought (for clear breaches of FFP and failure to cooperate) the main story was on clear breaches of FFP. Now they have been exonerated of that, the storyline should have focussed on the same subject. Not twisted as you have to move to the non-story of uncooperation.

I expect better and hope for fairer reporting on this matter.

Not saying the BBC article is fair (I haven't read it) however it's been known for weeks that City were found not to have committed the more serious allegations but the nature of the lack of co-operation was only made known when the full judgement was released yesterday.

 

[SilverFox2]

He looks like the kind of guy who needs help satisfying his wife tbh.


I’m still gobsmacked CAS fined us for our lack of cooperation, even in the initial stages they could see we had grounds , why they haven’t taken into account the complete loss of trust in UEFA is beyond me .

Its in UEFA rules which CAS were using to see if we complied with them.
Because we did not trust the whole process we decided to not give them any more evidence that in itself would likely be ignored or used against us. We chose to break that rule and the fine ensues.
Our reasons were irrelevant as far as CAS were concerned but they did say if we had shown that evidence we may have prevented the need for CAS to be involved.
We preferred to prove our innocence initially with CAS. As PB said earlier we may choose to get the fine eliminated legally.

 

[CrownPointBlue]

Same thoughts too, should be an all out effort to put these bastards in the bottom block !

An escort for him across the car park to the press entrance ?

 

[kippax4ever]

I suggest you go to the 'man city' thread on Rawk to see how they feel. You won't be surprised.

Nah don't want my laptop hacked mate.

 

[lancs blue]

Who stitched the two emails together ?
Why ?
isn't that against the law ?
Are we going after said person or persons ?

Either Rui Pinto, in which case the law is already dealing with him, or someone at Der Spiegel who thought it made the story look better. I suppose we could pursue DS through the German courts but it's questionable whether it's worth the hassle tbh, it could drag on.

 

[Ardwick Green Blue]

The 2 points of failed cooperation;

1. UEFA demanding a full cross examination / interrogation of 7 or 8 members of MCFC staff at a private hearing in 2019 - only Soriano attended, it’s obvious why City would not consent to this. Why would we sacrifice our staff to UEFA’s/g14’s wolves? CAS said if we did present these witnesses, as we did for CAS, UEFA may have found us not guilty (pro tip, they wouldn’t have, they just would have been able to warp our evidence in to their prosecution).

2. the Email chains and who is Mohamed? We provided this all voluntarily to CAS. This info exonerated us.

The reason we didn’t cooperate is clear, as we stated this to UEFA and CAS, we wouldn’t comment to UEFA regarding illegally stolen emails, and we quoted the Portuguese judge reviewing Rui Pinto’s case who said his emails should not be used for prosecution in any setting world wide. We thought the entire investigation was compromised (we were right) and that we’d be found guilty no matter what by UEFA.

All probably true but it still doesn't answer my question as to what advantage the club has gained.

I'm not seeing one.